THOMPSON v. BRITTON et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEES IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO REASSERT HIS CLAIMS IN THE USDC FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVA NIA, WHERE VENUE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO RETURN TO THE PLAINTIFF ALL OF THE EXTRA COPIES OF HIS PRO SE COMPLAINT, TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE STATISTICALLY. SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 6/28/06. 6/29/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(le, )

THOMPSON v. BRITTON et al

Doc. 2

Case 2:06-cv-02701-JF

Document 2

Filed 06/28/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA A A R O N THOMPSON v. R.E. BRITTON, et al. : : : : : C I V I L ACTION

N O . 06-cv-02701-JF

M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER F u l l a m , Sr. J. J u n e 28, 2006

I n his pro se complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was s u b j e c t e d to random urinalysis testing which purported to establish t h a t he had consumed illegal drugs (TCH); that the defendants (all o f whom are prison officials at SCI-Houtzdale and SCI-Cresson) t h e r e a f t e r repeatedly required him to undergo urinalysis testing, a n d imposed discipline when the tests were returned as "positive" f o r the use of illegal drugs. In the memorandum of law

a c c o m p a n y i ng his pro se complaint, plaintiff seems to be of the v i e w that, whereas "random" drug testing of prison inmates is p e r f e c t l y acceptable, "investigatory" testing followed by d i s c i p l i n a ry action is a violation of his constitutional rights. W h i l e it seems clear that plaintiff's complaint is l e g a l l y frivolous, I decline to rule on the merits of the case at t h i s stage. Since all of the defendants are located in the Western

D i s t r i c t of Pennsylvania, and since all of the alleged violations o c c u r r e d in that District, it is obvious that this court lacks p e r s o n a l jurisdiction over any of the defendants, and that, if p l a i n t i f f wishes to pursue his claims, he must do so in the Western D i s t r i c t of Pennsylvania. An Order follows.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-02701-JF

Document 2

Filed 06/28/2006

Page 2 of 2

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA A A R O N THOMPSON v. R.E. BRITTON, et al. : : : : : ORDER A N D NOW, this 28t h day of June 2006, IT IS ORDERED: 1. P l a i n t i f f ' s motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is C I V I L ACTION

N O . 06-cv-02701-JF

D E N I E D , without prejudice. 2. T h i s action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to

p l a i n t i f f ' s right to reassert his claims in the United States D i s t r i c t Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where v e n u e would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), if plaintiff w i s h e s to proceed. 3. T h e Clerk is directed to return to the plaintiff

a l l of the extra copies of his pro se complaint, together with a c o p y of this Order. 4. T h e Clerk shall close this case statistically.

B Y THE COURT:

/ s / John P. Fullam John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

2